I am working on an App that will have a bunch of pictures and videos the user will need to have. The app's mantra is having these videos and pictures available on demand and on the go. However, I am concerned about the app being too fat (big), in essence turning off some customers who prioritize size over substance. The preference has always been to have the customer be able to access these videos from anywhere regardless of 3g/wifi (i.e. local on the device). What are the really good options? Assuming I choose to elect to go the non-local route (i.e. using wifi/3g), what are my options there as well? Please advice. The size of the videos/pics could be up to 1.5GB.
The usual approach seems to be to download and store the videos on demand. A lot of the apps I've seen allow the user to manage the stored videos themselves so that they can remove videos if they aren't going to use them again.
Related
We've been asked if we can help a client stream uploaded video files while overlaying a unique watermark per user, eg, their email address or username. Security on the stream needs to be good, but not necessarily ironclad. That is, enough to put someone off trying to grab the bits outside of the player (so some encryption is very helpful), while the overlay would hopefully make it clear that re-recording it, or saving the file, would help us track the perpetrator.
I was hoping some combo of Azure Media Services and the Azure Media Player might be able to do something like this, but for the life of me I can't find anything online about it.
We're not wedded to Azure if it's not possible using that service but is through an alternative.
Thanks so much for your help. It feels like this shouldn't be a unique request, but I can't find anything on Google. Maybe my search terms are letting me down.
It really depends if you are trying to do server side watermarking or client side watermarking. Currently Azure Media Services doesn't have support for server side watermarking.
However, this is easily achieved on the client side with Azure Media Player -> because the player uses HTML elements, you can easily add an additional HTML element for your overlay and style it with CSS to display the required information.
I'm doing a language web site for my university language center, where students login and see videos to learn English. i have to do it like this,
person is logging in to the system, search using a search area and find the details,lessons and videos relevant to that videos. this functionality exactly matches the youtube scenario.
for implementing twitter like functionality we can use status-net, is there a similer library, statusnet like famous implementation for youtube or a some kind of platform or a framework like codeigniter that we can use to implement youtube like site very easily??
please suggest some options?? a open source one or a commercial one ???
and what is the best video format to use in a such web site?? flv?? mp4?? or mov???
regards,
Rangana
Your best option is to use a 'cloud' based video processing service. Most have a sample project / library for many different languages and frameworks. Here is a list of a few I've tried and liked:
http://zencoder.com/
http://transloadit.com/
http://pandastream.com/
The typical steps involve uploading the video files to a large 'cloud' static asset host (such as S3) through the browser. If you are inexperienced it is best to select a processor that provides an uploader (it will handle putting the files in the right spot). Of the three, Transloadit and Panda both have custom unloaders.
Usually the service will allow you to either pass the encoding settings (what formats and qualities to) output to as parameters or configure them in your account. To support all current HTML5 browsers you just need H264 (.m4a) and OGG (.ogv). However, the new trend in the video world is for WEBM (.webm) so you might want to include it as well.
Next you will receive a unique code from the web service that you must store in persistent storage (database). The web service can be configured to 'callback' (perform an HTTP POST or GET request to your service) once the video is encoded.
Once your recieve a callback you can activate your video and start dislpaying it on your pages. For displaying, if you are inexperienced I'd highly recommend you use one of the following players:
http://sublimevideo.net/
http://longtailvideo.com/
http://videojs.com/
They all do similar things for different prices. My current personal favourite is Sublime Video (it offers cool light box effects and a gorgeous player).
Why do you have to re-implement Youtube when you can just use it for hosting your videos for free? Many online e-learning portals (e.g. Khan academy) do exactly that.
As far as the best video format to use -- go read about H.264/AVC. It's what Youtube currently uses.
I think you will not find already built solution ;)
But it's not really that hard. You can use existing frameworks that will make your life easier while you build account management system, the rest shouldn't be really that hard (assuming you don't really want to re-build the whole Youtube ;D ).
For playing videos, you can use JW Player. A great piece of software, you should check it out.
My company delivers programming instructions for products we sell in both streaming video (hosted on CloudFront) and pdfs (hosted on Amazon S3). We don't want for our customers to be able to take the content out of these PDFs, save the PDF, or be able to share the link. At the same time, we don't want for people to be able to streal the video (we're less concerned with the videos).
I've been racking my brain trying to figure out the best options on securing this. What are the limitations with PDF security, at the end of the day, can you stop them? Or at least make it really hard?
Unless you create and deliver your data in custom format, your own viewer with built-in content protection mechanisms, you are out of luck. Everything you deliver to the client can be captured, copied and distributed. With PDFs and video streams this is trivial.
If you can suffer the PDF generation overhead, you could individualize the PDFs by putting the customer's name on each page. Turn off editing as well, and that'll discourage people. It'll still be quite possible to get around these, of course.
I want to view dynamic contents (flash games, online transaction...etc) offline.
For example, I finish level 1 of this cool flash RPG game.
I go offline and play the level again.
Or, I make a purchase.
And make the purchase again offline.
Of course this won't do anything. It will be strictly for demonstration purpose.
Or, I watch a video online. Go offline and watch it again.
Is this feasible? Whatever I do through browser, it has to download things.
When it downloads, it stores on disk. Then, when it is in offline mode, it routes all traffic out to local disk.
Sounds simple, but is this really possible?
Or am I missing something?
Let's say someone patched a browser to make offline mode much more powerful.
As a web developer, how can I secure my application from this
patched browser?
Let's say I charging my contents (video, game...etc)
per view/use. With this patched browser, people can pay once
and view/use it over and over again.
They might even make a tarball out of their browser cache
and share with other people online.
So, my questions are:
is this patched browser possible?
if it is possible, how can I defend my content against it?
I'm trying to find the original author of the quote: "Trying to make digital content not copyable is like trying to make water not wet."
In your question you describe several different scenarios as if they were similar. They are not. If you have a specific question, then please ask it so that people can focus on addressing the specific case that concerns you.
Let's talk about video (and audio). Essentially, without controlling the client, you can NOT stop the downloaded video from being cached and re-watched. "Patched" browsers exist. In fact, they're not patched. They don't even need to be. FireFox has any number of plug-ins such as "DownloadHelper" which make all of this possible. YouTube goes to some effort to change their system regularly to break DownloadHelper. But they know they can only slow things down.
The only way to control a video download being re-watched is insist on the user using your completely custom plugin or application. The problem is that (a) that costs you much more money, (b) it's more painful for the user.
The other cases you mention - RPG and online transaction... these are different. Often with an RPG or other game, the client portion includes only a part of the code. Some of the code resides on your server. Without a connection to the server, the game cannot be played. You don't have to write it that way, you could make it 100% client... in which case (e.g. for Flash) the SWF file can be downloaded and played again and again, without your control.
But usually those online flash games are part-server in order to do what you say, and make them playable only online and only via the game-writers site.
An online transaction ALWAYS involves a server component, usually encrypted and non-repeatable. They can be secured.
For the better part of 10 years + we have relied on various network mapped drives to allow file sharing. One drive letter for sharing files between teams, a seperate file share for the entire organization, a third for personal use etc. I would like to move away from this and am trying to decide if an ECM/Sharepoint type solution, or home grown app, is worth the cost and the way to go? Or if we should simply remain relying on login scripts/mapped drives for file sharing due to its relative simplicity? Does anyone have any exeperience within their own organization or thoughts on this?
Thanks.
SharePoint is very good at document sharing.
Documents generally follow a process for approval, have permissions, live in clusters... and these things lend themselves well to SharePoints document libraries.
However there are somethings that don't lend themselves well to living inside SharePoint... do you have a virtual hard drive (.vhd) file that you want to share with a workmate? Not such a good idea to try and put a 20GB file into SharePoint.
SharePoint can handle large files, and so can SQL Server behind it... but do you want your SQL Server bandwidth being saturated by such large files? Do you want your backup of SQL Server to hold copies of such large files multiple times?
I believe that there are a few Microsoft partners who offer the ability to disassociate file blobs from the SharePoint database, so that SharePoint can hold the metadata and a file system holds the actual files, and SharePoint simply becomes the gateway to manage access, permissions, and offer a centralised interface to files throughout an organisation. This would offer you the best of both worlds.
Right now though, I consider SharePoint ideal for documents, and I keep large files (that are not document centric) on Windows file shares.
Definetely, use a tool.
The main benefit here is version control. Being able to jump easily to a previous version, diff'ing and seeing who modified what (see most VCS' blame/annotate tool- it prints out a text file showing when/who modified each line in the text file).
Second, you can probably benefit from issue tracking/task tracking.
Other benefits include web access from the internet, having a wiki (which can be great in some situations), etc.
I use Subversion + Redmine at work, and I find it highly useful- test a few solutions and you will surely find out further advantages for you.
One thing that can be overlooked in the change to an document management tool is the planning required around how much is going to be stored and information architecture issues like where different content is going to end up.
SharePoint particularly is easy to setup without a good plan going forward and is particularly vulnerable to difficulties later on when things get to busy.
I would not recommend a home grown app for something like this. The problem has been solved by off the shelf tools and growing one from scratch is going to cost a huge amount and not get you any way near the features for the money.
Did I mention how important planning your security groups and document areas (IA) was?
If you need just document storage then sharepoint can do very well. WSS is ewen free and it provides very good document storage capabilities.
But you have to plan carefully as updating existing applications is painfull. If you decide to go with Sharepoint then I can give you few advices from top of my head
Pay attention to security configuration (user groups, privilegies,..)
Plan your document libraries well as it is not easy to just move documents betveen them
Also consider limiting number of versions that one document can have, because sharepoint stores full backups betveen verions, not just changes
Don't use infopath:) we have very bad experience with it (just don't tell this to managers)
If you don't really need to change graphical look of Sharepoint than don't bother with it as it brings many problems (I'm talking about custom masterpages and custom site templates)
Try to use as much OOB stuff as possible, because developing your own webparts not only cost more, but it can be quite complicated.
Make sure to turn-on search indexing. This is quite tricky, because it is by default turned off and then you will be as surprised that search is not working as I was :)
If you try to just deploy it and load 10.000 documents into it then you will surely have problems with it later. If you give a little thought about structure then you will end up with really good document storage.
Migrating is very probably worth the cost in the long term. You will gain reliability, versioning, traceability, and extensibility.
Be sure to first identify the groups/rights, and to identify which links need to be fixed (maybe you have applications that use links to the shares).
An open source alternative to SharePoint is Alfresco, it is very good for CIFS (Windows shares) too.